Security of iPhones the casualty in Apple’s victory over the FBI

SAN FRANCISCO – Apple Inc. suffered one major casualty in its legal victory over the FBI: bragging rights over the iPhone’s security.

The FBI’s decision to abandon its effort to force Apple to help break into a terrorist’s handset marks a win for the company. Yet the agency’s claim that it found a way to hack into the device via an anonymous third party deals a blow to customers’ faith in the iPhone’s ability to protect their information.

“It’s not the best news for Apple,” said Chris McClean, a data security researcher at Forrester Research Inc. “The Apple brand takes a little bit of a hit here. Because we don’t have details, customers are still going to question whether or not their device is safe. If one company can get into it, then potentially that exploit is reusable for any device.”

The FBI backed down after six bruising weeks of public sparring with Apple, during which the technology community rallied behind the world’s most valuable company while politicians on both sides of the aisle advocated cooperation between the antagonists. Apple’s refusal to accede to the request ignited a debate over the balance between the needs of law enforcement and the importance of customer privacy.

“We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated,” Apple said in an emailed statement.

The technology giant has said that creating what amounted to a back door to their smartphone would set a dangerous precedent and endanger millions of iPhone users the world over. Though it won this round against the Justice Department, the fact that an external party managed to crack the device at the center of the controversy showed Apple devices may not be impervious to hackers.

Apple regularly updates the iOS software that runs iPhones and iPads, and with each new generation it fixes security vulnerabilities. That was the case last week, when it rolled out iOS 9.3. Among the flaws plugged was an opening discovered by researchers at Inverse Path, a security consultancy in Trieste, Italy. The researchers said it might be possible to modify iOS and bypass security features via the USB port, while Apple itself acknowledged the vulnerability in a post on its website.

Any weakness fixed last week wouldn’t prevent the FBI from hacking the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5C, which runs an older version of the software. The agency has so far declined to reveal the exact method it’s using, leaving customers uncertain as to whether updating their operating system closes the back door.

The judge presiding over the case must now decide whether or not to accede to the FBI’s request to end the case. Apple’s lawyers said last week that they would expect the government to outline successful methods employed to crack the phone.

Closing the case would impede the company’s ability to get that information. Under a relatively new process known as an equities review, however, the FBI may be obligated to reveal the details unless it can show administration officials that there’s a substantial national security need to keep the flaw secret.

Whatever the judge decides, the debate over the priorities of law enforcement and personal privacy is likely to continue.

“I don’t foresee a scenario in which both sides are happy,” said Eric Berg, a former Department of Justice attorney who’s now a litigation partner at Foley & Lardner LLP in Milwaukee.

“There are reasonable arguments on both sides for what the privacy lobby and the law enforcement community are lobbying for. I have trouble seeing an outcome which would satisfy both sides of that debate.”